Parental Advisory: Same Sex Marriage

Thanks. I don't like to judge a whole group by the actions of a few. So that's why I asked.

I realize that there are some Christians that would be terribly offended by that warning. Like religion is something that no one should be offended
by. And I say - if it is understood that some are offended by sexual situations, adult language, gay marriage, profanity, violence, then it only
follows that some people are going to be offended by religious material.

I'm a firm believer in changing the channel if you dont like something, whether it be gay marriage or praising Jesus. If a child sees something about
gay marriage and asks about it, it's a parent's job to explain it however they see fit. If a parent doesn't want their child exposed to something
as prevalent as religion or gay marriage, then they better not let them watch the Simpsons at all!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
then they better not let them watch the Simpsons at all!

I was actually pretty suprised last night when I saw the Simpsons. Traffic was awesome and I got home by 6, so I was able to throw it on. There was a
toy commercial, and I was a bit shocked because I never really thought of the Simpsons as being targetted towards kids nor typical for kids of the age
group who would buy or want Nerf Darts. But then, some ADHD medication is advertising on a conspiracy site, so who knows.

As to switching the channel if you don't want to see something, I agree. However, the parental warnings give you a heads up before it's too late. If
I were watching some sitcom I was under the impression was family friendly with my hypothetical 6 year old, and some member for whatever reason says
something like "yeah, I did it in the back of the car with her," it'd already be too late. The 6 year old would probably ask about that, then I'd
have the choice to blatantly lie, or explain what it meant at a far, far too young of an age. With the advisories, that scenario could be avoided.

Along those lines, too, the parental advisories go both ways. When I was in high school, I would look for that explicit lyrics sticker on CDs I'd
get. Even now, if I'm looking to watch a Die Hard style show or movie, seeing the parental warning of violence clues me in to expecting that show is
the type I'm looking for. (If any of my brothers or sisters have a problem with a (trying to be a) good Christian boy watching things like that,
check out the book "Wild At Heart" by John Eldredge. Really interesting perspective and it also explains why I and other fellahs do like movies like
that.)

Well, there's that JJ, but how about something constructive like learning about the real world? You know, the one where magical flying
zombies(Jesus) don't exist and gravity, not love, is what keeps us on the planet. You know that little thing called reality where giants and talking
snakes are known for what they are, BS!

Or how about putting models together? Breast implants, nose jobs, liposuction, raise forehead, tummy tuck.(Get it, not model airplanes but real
models, I know you do but others might not)

Card games are always fun. Wait, according to the church Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon, and oker are evil and satan. Ok, how about music? Well, except those
were also declared satan and evil by the church. Damn, maybe all you have is burning books since everything else is evil and satan according to the
church.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Well, there's that JJ, but how about something constructive like learning about the real world? You know, the one where magical flying
zombies(Jesus) don't exist and gravity, not love, is what keeps us on the planet. You know that little thing called reality where giants and talking
snakes are known for what they are, BS!

Then, instead of insulting me, educate me. Show me how you know beyond a shadow of doubt Jesus never existed. Present your evidence that has convinced
you so completely that religion is...Lesse what was it, oh yeah, "religion is a superstition. People need it to keep them from eating their young."
I mean...I really never had the urge to eat babies before I was a Christian, so I don't think that was my primary cause to become a Christian. I
think my primary cause in becoming a Christian was that my eyes were finally opened to the real world.

Prove to me Jesus existed! I have proof of Apollonius of Tiana, who was suppose to be the son of god, healed the sick, performed miracles, and rose
into heaven after being crucified by the Romans. But christians have nothing about Jesus except for the bible, which is wrong on everything.

There were never ANY Hebrew slaves in Egypt let alone a mass exodus.

The world wasn't made in 6 days, therefor Genesis is out.

No world flood either.

No Jesus, no Virgins giving birth to babies, so no new testament.

No records of anyone named Jesus being executed so that throws out the entire new testament.

No Garden of Eden, and Adam/Eve impossible, so again, bible wrong.

Sorry, but nothing in the bible is correct, NONE OF IT! Therefor you should stop using fictional books for firewood when you have plenty of bibles
for that.

It's your perogative. I've had these conversations many times with you, presented secular roman histories mentioning Jesus being crucified, the
day/age theory, and evidence of a flood, and you have retorted with more insults. If your goal is to simply upset and try to anger Christians, keep
right on truckin'. It's not very effective against me, I see it as more as ignorance of the Bible and fear of the unknown, but I'm sure it might
upset some Christians. If, however, your goal is to deny ignorance and open people's eyes to what you believe truth to be, you're going about it in
exactly the wrong way. You're going to find, and probably have found, that when you insult and try to tweek people's emotions, they become far less
receptive to any information you might present, no matter how valid. This is just a suggestion, and how I see your posts.

If your goal is to upset people, like I said, keep going, you're on the right path.

James, I agree with you and so do most historians. I cannot think of one good thing Christianity in particular has done for our world. I can think of
many bad things. I have never met a Christian who I thought was "Christ like" which is what being a Christian is supposed to be. The Christ myth is
many years older then Christianity. Many older religions have a Christ story, born of a virgin died for our sins, coming again all the so called
"christian" beliefs. Religion however does bring inner peace to millions and death to millions more. It answers the questions we all ask. Why am I
here? What is my purpose? What happens when we die? Questions I still ask. Questions I believe are answered much more satisfactorily by science then
religion. I offer nothing but respect and maybe even a little bit of envy to people who really beleive and as a result have had the big questions
answered. It just aggravates the bejesus out of me when the "Christians" push their agenda on the rest of us.

Originally posted by apocalypta
(snippetysnip). It just aggravates the bejesus out of me when the "Christians" push their agenda on the rest of us.

Anyone else sitting here snickering at that sentence?

(emphasis mine; see? Without Jesus, you wouldn't have had such a handy little phrase, wouldya?)

Ok. Christianity has helped millions upon millions of people find peace and contentment in their lives; it's been the root of several hundred
charities who've given billions of dollars in financial aid to help the poor and needy; it's provided people with the motivation to learn more
about each other and do away with ignorance. Like every other religion, there are millions of followers whose lives have been forever changed - for
the better. It'd be naive to dispute this very simple fact.

(I'm not even Christian, and this is blindingly obvious to me)

Sure, not all Christians are loving, tolerant people. But that's the fault of the follower, not the religion itself.

It sounds as if the real beef here is with organized religion in general, not just Christianity...which is fine. Just don't use Christianity (or any
other singled-out religion) as a scapegoat; there are evil-doers within the ranks of every religion, and it serves no purpose to single out
one in particular.

You are right Tinkle. I do have a beef with all organized religion. Christianity just happens to be the religion I know most about. Had I been raised
in India I am sure Hinduism would be the bane of my exsitence. I am angry. Angry that the country I love is being taken over by theocrats. I live in
Europe now . My aggravation is less now. No one wastes any air time to exposed boobs or same sex marriages on the Simpsons. No one is wasting tax
payer money to investigate sex in video games. (except of course to make fun of America for doing so). I ask myself what will America be known for in
a thousand years? Great Movies? Great shopping? Mcdonalds? Obesity? Three million citizens in prisons? Fundementalist Christians? Illegal wars?
Starting WW3? When I first got here I gravitated to the expat community. I wanted to be around other Americans. However their inability to be
empathetic, their arrogance, their blind loyalty to a corrupt administration pushed me away. I don't idolize the Europeans. They have their faults
and weaknesses. Their history leaves somehting to be desired.
Please don't get me worng. I love America. I go home ot visit when ever I can. But when I leave it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
By the way, I used Bejesus on purpose. It made me laugh .

I do understand your point of view...I was born and raised in England, where of course we have topless Page 3 girls in our daily papers to enjoy while
we're having breakfast

(fried eggs, anyone? bwahahaa)

When I look around at various countries, there appears to be a strange correlation between "acceptance of sexuality" and "lower rate of sex
crimes"; this does suggest that the more uptight we are, the more likely it is to result in sexual deviancy.

Originally posted by junglejake
So am I to understand that, if it is absloutly acceptable by your own morality, it should be by everyone elses, as well, and if someone doesn't fit
in with this universal morality of yours, they should be mocked, forced to sit down and watch acts of homosexual love (some "diversity" training for
people deemed "homophobes" is done this way) along with anything else their morality doesn't synch up with.

This is quite amusing. Christianity is getting slammed for being intollerant. The amusing part is, some of the most intollerant people are
slamming Christianity for its apparent intollerance.

Some people have a problem with vulgar language. Some people have a problem with sexually suggestive material. Some people have a problem with
violence. We have warnings on the TV for those people. They've accepted, for the most part, that the duty is thiers -- if they don't want to see it,
they can turn it off. Well, guess what: some people have a problem with homosexuality. Why shouldn't those people be afforded the same right as
people who don't like to see violence on TV?

Well then if we have a warning for homosexuality because people don't want to see it... Then thats just as bad as saying we need a warning for mixed
marriages on TV b/c some people don't like it. I think the Simpsons were poking fun at people like that. Its ridiculous... Vulgar Language and sexual
content they have because of young children who should see it... they repeat those vulgar language... sexual content because they shouldn't see it...
and anyways if there is just a problem with some ppl not wanting to see it then... when they watch it and see that there is a same sex
marriage/relationship they can change the channel...

What is the problem with homosexuality in the first place?
-- I mean, why are the neo-cons and devout Christians so against this?

This may just be me being a paranoid Communist but...

The way I interpret this is, that the system wants endlessly multiplying baby factorys - something that homosexuality is incompatiable with... Why?! -
Because that way there is a huge labour force to contort and control into doing their bidding (predominantly; making money)...

Although I haven't made a very clear connection (apologies) I think there is more behind this "gay-bashing" concept than meets the eye... Since
when does morals have anything to do with anything is this day and age... I dont know how George Dubya can be so against gay-marrage (and keep it
illegal) but can go to war with an entire nation for oil...

Originally posted by junglejake
Er..Davood, I don't follow. My point was that the parental advisories are to parents who could have a problem with the content they're about to
watch and can protect their children from it. It happens that homosexuality bothers some people, and they may not want their children to watch
something like that. So what's wrong with a parental advisory?

Aren't The Simpsons rated PG-14. By the time you're 14, you know way more than homesexuality and sexual things.

Originally posted by apocalypta
Do you know what other countries have problems with religous nuts trying to "protect" their children the immorality of same sex marriage and
breasts?

Saudia Arabia is one. Their society treats these issues similarly as does the US's. You can bet your behind that if the Christians had their way
you'd be getting beheaded for adultary( if you are female that is) or homosexuality too.
Shows like the Simpsons have to protect themselves against the fanatical right wing nutters.
The government happily wastes time and money to go after these immoral tv shows and video games keeping we the people preoccupied while they continue
waging an illegal war.

Your assertions are bigoted, unbiased and flame-baiting, at best. Regardless, I will respond rationally.

Your comments calling Christians "religious nutters" is uncalled for. The fact that decent people have the good sense to protect thier children
from indecency and immorality. To not protect your children from filth is nuts. My question is, what decent parent would let a child watch
the Simpsons, as it certainly does not aid in the developement of a child.

As far as your ignorant and bigoted assertion that Christians would like to behead immoral people, well, I think I've explained quite well that you
are bigoted and ignorant. You are certainly ignorant of the Christian faith.
As rfar as "illegal war", I see no need in going into that with you. I seriously doubt you can point out the differences between this war, which,
on the surface, is a righteous one, and any other war that has been waged by any other nation or the United Nations, in the last 30 years.

Your comments calling Christians "religious nutters" is uncalled for. The fact that decent people have the good sense to protect thier children
from indecency and immorality.

Ok so maybe "religous nutters" wasn't the nicest thing to say. How about religous bullies? And of course the "decent" people have the good
sense to protect their childeren from immorailty . While I am a no good sinner because I teach my children that love comes in many forms and god has
many names. And I was wrong to say that the Christians would want to behead the sinners, when what I meant to say was that they would stone them.
After all isn't that what your holy book commands?

"If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Lev.
20:13

I find it interesting that Christians (and I am not against Christians, in fact I was raised as one and my parents and some of my family are
Christians and I love them very much) pick out certain parts of the bible to validate their beliefs in what is right and wrong regarding
homosexuality, but deny some of the very same scriptures as 'outdated' and 'obsolete'.

Exodus 31:15 - Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day,
he shall surely be put to death.

There's all kind of weird stuff about owning slaves and a woman's uncleanliness and tattoos and haircuts. How do you justify picking out just the
ones about homosexuality and ignoring the rest? I've always wondered that and have never gotten an answer.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There's all kind of weird stuff about owning slaves and a woman's uncleanliness and tattoos and haircuts. How do you justify picking out just the
ones about homosexuality and ignoring the rest? I've always wondered that and have never gotten an answer.

It's an Old covenant vs. the New Covenant. Things like stoning on the sabbath no longer apply (it's interesting that that is the only commandment
Jesus never speaks when listing the commandments, but he does comment on it.). What's intersting is that, as I'm getting deeper and deeper into the
Bible, I'm starting to think the old Law still applies to a degree (with the exception of dietary restrictions), but the punishment does not because
Christ already paid for our sins. However, that's just me, and I'm a distinct minority in that belief. I can't even support it yet because I've
only started to suspect that may be the case in the last week. It'll take quite a bit more research before my mind's made up.

I think the reason the general Christian population think that homosexuality is still a sin while much of that mentioned in Numbers and the like is
because Paul specifically points it out as being wrong in first Corinthians 6:9.

First Corinthians 6:8-10 (for context)

8Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the
kingdom of God.

So far as I've been able to tell, that's why homosexuality is still on that list of sins Christians talk about. Why they freak out more about
homosexuality than they do the sexual immorality that ravages our nation, I'm not sure.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.